Does the Amazon provide 20% of our oxygen?

Post by crimsonalucard » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 2:57 AM UTC

DenisM wrote: post #100

crimsonalucard wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/amazon/ama... it's just less accessible but I'm pretty sure like any forest on the face of the earth, portions of dead animal and plant matter is getting sequestered into the ground while another portion is getting exhaled by animals eating the leaves or other animals eating the animals. The stuff that's getting sequestered though is probably miniscule. At the timesca…

Even if a tiny amount was sequestered each year over the course of 55 million years there would be a huge pile of carbon there. But it isn’t there, is it?

Post by rolltiide » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 3:17 AM UTC

ramphastidae wrote: post #68

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this brought up a lot. Can you name a drug that has actually passed all the safety and efficacy trials that has been developed from something in the Amazon?

Quinine for one. There are many more if you are willing to do five minutes of research: https://www.conservation.org/blog/5-rainforest-species-that-...

Post by Rebelgecko » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 3:18 AM UTC

DenisM wrote: post #71

A few comments are saying that forests capture a lot of CO2. But how could that be? If a forest doesn't change over thousands of years it cannot be accumulating carbon in any significant quantity. Or else where would that material go? The Amazon trees are about as tall and wide today as they were 10,000 years ago, and only so many of them fit on a given area. If the amount of vegetation remains the same the only way…

Post by kawera » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 3:24 AM UTC

gleglegle wrote: post #102

povertyworld wrote: post #15

I haven't been following this specific news story, but I remember from my environmental sociology class that fire prevention in forests eventually leads to unnatural states that are then prone to massive uncontainable fires. Have they been suppressing natural fire in this region for too long? If this fire is naturally burning, then isn't the best response to let it run its course unless human lives are threatened?

The Amazon does not burn naturally. Fires there are man made to clear land for agriculture.

Post by umeshunni » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 3:50 AM UTC

mattkrause wrote: post #70

icelancer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> In contrast, other newspaper topics like politics, sports, business, etc. are often literal reporting of what people do This comment should be preserved for all time and cited in the Gell-Mann Effect entry. Do you really think physics is infinitely more complicated than finance or politics?

I'm not sure about that specifically, but reporting on politics is much closer to the paper's core competency. The paper runs articles on politics every single day . The characters and issues don't change too quickly: Quimby was the mayor last week; next week, he'll be the same mayor, dogged by the same scandals and trying to enact the same politics too. A lot of the facts are easy to check, if someone cared to do so…